From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1752674AbXBKNUZ@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752674AbXBKNUZ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 11 Feb 2007 08:20:25 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932078AbXBKNUZ
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Sun, 11 Feb 2007 08:20:25 -0500
Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([217.147.92.49]:39877 "EHLO
	vavatch.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752674AbXBKNUY (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 11 Feb 2007 08:20:24 -0500
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:19:57 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>, Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>,
       nigel@nigel.suspend2.net, Robert Hancock <hancockr@shaw.ca>,
       linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
       pm list <linux-pm@lists.osdl.org>
Message-ID: <20070211131957.GA6039@srcf.ucam.org>
References: <fa.xSKPgY66Q+DPCZ1pszFFfdrJ0To@ifi.uio.no> <200702101130.44471.rjw@sisk.pl> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702101231281.20138@iabervon.org> <200702102050.28218.rjw@sisk.pl> <20070211065404.GA943@1wt.eu> <20070211121339.GB4204@srcf.ucam.org> <20070211130943.GA1868@1wt.eu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070211130943.GA1868@1wt.eu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mjg59@codon.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Tue, 20 Jun 2006 01:35:45 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on vavatch.codon.org.uk)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 02:09:43PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:

> Then change the PCI layer to do the basic PM only for known compatible
> drivers, and modify only the known-compatible drivers to mark them
> explicitly compatible. IMHO, it generally is a bad idea to require that
> any driver explicitly states what it *does not* support. It's the reason
> why users encounter problem on new features with old drivers. For instance,
> do you know if the old ISA NE2000 driver breaks suspend ? I don't know,
> but I would at least expect it not to support it by default. It's best
> to announce what *is* supported and consider everything unimplemented
> otherwise explicitly stated.

This ignores the reality of the situation, which is that many drivers 
support suspend and resume despite the lack of any explicit 
implementation. Changing things so they're flagged as broken when 
they're not would be a regression.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org